cua-selection-mode by default (was: Transient Mark Mode on by default)

[David Kastrup]

Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>> So all-in-all I really don't see why everybody is making a lot of
>>>> fuzz over making shift-select a 1st class emacs feature -- when
>>>> we could just as well just leave it to CUA mode to DTRT, but possibly
>>>> make a few enhancements to basic Emacs functionalities to assist CUA
>>>> mode to do its work.
>>>
>>> I'd tend to agree.  Maybe we should make cua-mode more visible and be
>>> done with it.
>>
>> It is right there in the (sparsely populated) "Options" menu.  In my
>> opinion, that is as good as it gets.
>
> cua-selection-mode is not available in the Options menu.  I wouldn't
> mind adding an additional menu item for it, but if so, I think it should
> be on by default.
>
> There are two good reasons for providing shift-selection by default.

[...]

Oh please.  If you want to discuss something different, open a new
thread instead of feigning disagreement with a different posting of mine
(I was talking about cua-mode quite explicitly).  We had enough strawmen
in this thread.

I am perfectly fine with making cua-selection-mode (which I never tried)
the default without even an option menu entry as long as

a) it does not interfere with preexisting bindings (whoever is capable
of extending those bindings should be able to customize cua-selection
off if he really needs to)

b) turning transient-mark-mode off leaves one with a reasonable set of
features/bindings.  This implies that cua-selection-mode should not be
made to rely on full transient-mark-mode.  If no feature of it makes any
sense at all without transient-mark-mode, cua-selection-mode should
either be inactive without transient-mark-mode, or interact usefully
with temporary transient-mark-mode.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum